Thoughtcafe have come up with a really clever little ruse to stop writers flooding the 'Last *** entered' with multiple postings! They have achieved this by basing the last whatever on 'writers names' rather than on work posted, so a writer who posts several consecutive items has only the last one posted in the list! Clever or what? It has several potential advantages, the first being that obviously the 'Last 10 entered' would have 10 writers to choose from. Another possible advantage is that it might discourage writers from multiple posting; it would be better to wait until your last piece dropped off the the list before posting the next item. So how about it ABC, could we adopt a similar system?
User login
New forum topics
Who's online
There are currently 40 users and 298 guests online.
Help Keep This Site Free
Purchase an ABCtales.com mug:
Andrea (not verified) | March 17, 2002 - 20:49
Seems like a good idea, to me, Missus.
In all my whole year of posting, I don't think I've EVER managed to stay in the 'last 10 entered' for longer than...well...10 seconds, before I was relegated to no 2,945 (or thereabouts).
justyn_thyme (not verified) | March 17, 2002 - 21:41
Sounds good to me. I also think it should be combined with a means of dating the entry of a piece on the day/time it is approved for viewing rather than the day/time it is submitted to the site. I know this has been discussed before, but given that so many pieces are held up for poobumwilly review and given the volume of new work, many pieces will never be in the "last ten" probably even after making this suggested change.
Would it be possible for the editor to change the date entered to the date it is approved for viewing when approving it? That would solve the problem without any programing change, though it would mean an extra step for the editor.
I have no objection to the poobumwilly review, but it can be frustrating to submit a piece and find that it never had a chance of being in the last ten entered due to a curiosity in the way the system is structured.
andrew pack (not verified) | March 18, 2002 - 19:29
Have you tried Stormy's idea of last 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 by everything, or just stories or just poems ? I find it works very well.
It'd be interesting if Statto Steve could do it to see what proportion of people read by last ten, or random story or actually go in through the main gallery.
mississippi (not verified) | March 19, 2002 - 18:28
I actually changed the figure to 300 Andrew and re-load it from the address bar. The point is a hell of a lot of people here would prefer to see 10 different names at the head of the list, and as I pointed out, it might discourage multiple postings which in turn would lighten the load of the editors, not to mention making their reading duties a little less choresome, what with maybe having to read 10 pieces by the same author. I'm probably being contrary here, but when I scan down the list and see several consecutive pieces by one author, I instinctively pass them by. It's a bit like advertising, the more it's chucked at me the more I ignore it.
e-griff (not verified) | March 19, 2002 - 18:53
What are multiple postings? Not the same piece? I assume it means you shouldn't put more than so many new pieces up in a certain time. How can this be defined or agreed? seems very nebulous and subjective.
I agree edits should not appear on the new list. If the author radically changes a piece, fine, they can change the title a bit.
The person with by far the most postings currently is wordman, who is consistently good, and gets loads-a cherries! His latest piece is not quite so good (humble opinion). but if he works in bursts, why shouldn't he post 'em?
Andrew told me a few weeks ago it decreases the chances of a cherry to put lots of new work up at once. Wordman disproves this! (unless he could've got loads more).
Either the site imposes or advises a limit, or people will do it (why not?). Don't see the problem. (especially as my own work is so sporadic that I'm in no danger of being termed a 'multiple-poster'!
the answer to this is easy, look at the last 100 and pick what you want to read. sometimes I avoid the same author, sometimes (like wordman) I look to see what's next!
mississippi (not verified) | March 19, 2002 - 20:19
Ok, I withdraw the hypothesis that it is perhaps a little bit selfish to flood the list with ones own work, but it is an opinion I apply to myself. As a last comment I will just add that I can't imagine anyone else on this site being as sporadic as I am. I didn't post anything for almost a year, but when I did start to post a story I had it finished for the purposes of the site and split it into sixteen parts. I could have posted all sixteen bits at once and pushed everyone off the last ten for five minutes, but my sense of fairness (misguided, I hear some of you say) prevented me from being so selfish. The site is here tomorrow, it doesn't mean I don't get to post something if I leave it for a day does it? Quite apart from the fact that it can be antagonistic to be so pushy it would probably make the editors glaze over at the sight of the same name time after time after time.
(Sorry but my last comments frequently exceed my first in length.)
e-griff (not verified) | March 19, 2002 - 21:05
I didn't realise Stormy suggested the 20/50/100 and it was implemented (Dohhhhh!) . Well done! Great plaudits.